Dr. Ritesh Garg vs State of Haryana and Another

Ajay Tewari, J.—The petitioner was selected as Medical Officer (HCMS-II) and was called for counselling for posting by letter dated 23.6.2006 in which it was mentioned as follows:

You are to give the choice of ten PHCs/CHCs/General Hospitals as per order of preference out of the list of vacancies attached herewith. In the list of vacancies so provided the places/vacancies identified with an asterisk indicates that this place/vacancy is challenging in nature where one year of experience will be counted as two years rural experience for while counting rural experience for applying to PG courses.

The petitioner opted for a challenging posting.

In the policy regarding Higher Studies for Doctors dated 12.03.2008, the following stipulation has been made:

The basic condition for eligibility is three years regular service with successful completion of probation period out of which two years service is essential in rural areas for both for re-served and open seats in the case of HCMS doctors. However, the condition of rural service will not be applicable in the case of a member of the HMES.

The petitioner applied for Post Graduation studies with respondent No. 2 - Pt. B. D. Sharma University of Health Sciences, Rohtak (Haryana) and appeared in the written test held on 01.03.2009 wherein he secured 5th position. The grouse of the petitioner is that he has not been issued the NOC and counseling is fixed for 27.3.2009. As per learned Counsel for the petitioner under the letter of appointment extracted above, he was entitled to count one year of rural service as two years. Thus, since he two years eight months of actual service, it would be equivalated to one year eight months plus one year equal to two years, thus making a grand total of three years eight months. At this stage, it would also be apposite to notice the terms of the policy which was in force at the time when the petitioner joined service. At that time, the provision read as follows:

Candidates keen to go in for higher studies for the P.G. Diploma/P.G. Degree Courses against the reserved seats will be required to apply for a "No Objection Certificate" to the competent authority before submitting their applications for admission to the said course. Only those candidates will be considered for NOC under this category who fulfill the following conditions.

i) He/she must have completed the probation period successfully and completed 5 years service under the State Government including the probation period out of which three years services should be in rural area/service.

Thus, at that time, the petitioner was looking at three and a half years actual service which would be equivalated to five years i.e. two years plus one and a half year equal to three years.

The question which arises in this writ petition is:

i) Whether the requirement of putting in three years regular service is an absolute requirement or whether it can be deemed to be notional?

In a somewhat similar case bearing CWP No. 9946 of 2008 decided on 04.11.2008 titled as Dr. Anoop Goel v. State of Haryana and Ors., a Division Bench of this Court held as follows:

We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. The petitioner cannot rely upon the stipulation contained in Annexure P-4 i.e. letter addressed to Dr. Varun Garg. The concession to Dr. Garg was personal in nature. There is no policy decision in respect of such benefit. But even if such benefit is deemed to be available to the petitioner, it will only mean that one year''s experience in such PHC will be counted as two years'' Rural experience. It means that three years'' rural over experience required to be eligible for admission would be satisfied by working for two years in Rural area. It does not amount to relaxation in respect of 5 years of service under the State Government. The three years'' rural experience is within 5 years of service under the State Government. As the petitioner has not completed five years of service under the State Government, therefore, the petitioner is not eligible to seek admission as an in-service candidate.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the observations in that writ petition took colour from the fact that the service of the petitioner therein did not amount to five years even after giving the benefit. I see no warrant for this interpretation. The observations of the Hon''ble Division Bench are not qualified in any manner.

The interpretation given by the Hon''ble Division Bench is binding on this Court.

Consequently, I hold that the requirement of having three years regular service is an absolute requirement and thus the petitioner cannot get the benefit of his rural service in challenging posting in the manner that he is seeking.

This writ petition is accordingly dismissed with no costs.

Since, the counselling is stated to be fixed for tomorrow, let the copy of this order be given dasti under the signature of the Court Secretary.